Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
69chevy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,529
Like?
Re: Is Full frame still the most versatile?
In reply to RedFox88, Apr 1, 2013

RedFox88 wrote:

zenpmd wrote:

I suppose its just a shame there is no a 2.8 constant zoom lens that extends to around 85mm on FF that allows for good portraits. 70 is too short.

This is not correct.  If you put a 24-70 f/2.8 on an aps-c dSLR and use it as a "longer" lens, it'll have the same DOF as if you'd had shot it with a 35mm SLR using the same lens at the same location.  35mm and aps-c only differ if you use the same lens at different focus distances (locations).

What you said doesn't make any sense.

Identical lens, with identical distance to subject, on APSC vs. 35mm will give a different plane of sharpness.

The images will differ because of the different perspectives and angles of view. Maybe you can argue that this is not the "DOF" at play, but calculations for DOF are format dependant and will differ based on format size.

Don't believe me? Set the focal length to a given number, set the distance, and switch between APSC and full frame.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

The other, bigger issue is the FOV and how it plays into the picture. To get the same FOV, you need to be 1.6x further from the subject with an APSC to get the same composition. This means the DOF increases with every inch you have to move back.

Additionally, although you can get the (about) same DOF (arguably) at the same distance with each format, your Full Frame "headshot", becomes an APSC "nostril shot" with the same shallow DOF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow